We compared Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation and Cisco Secure Workload based on our users' reviews in six categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation offers a simpler setup and advanced monitoring features, including auto policy writing and the Explorer tool. However, it lacks support for some operating systems and needs improvement in customer service and data security. Cisco Secure Workload has a moderate setup process and additional security controls with user-friendly features and helpful technical support. However, it faces integration issues and has a complicated dashboard.
"The offensive security where they do a fix is valuable. They go to a misconfiguration and provide detailed alerts on what could be there. They also provide a remediation feature where if we give the permission, they can also go and fix the issue."
"We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"The cloud misconfiguration is the most valuable feature."
"PingSafe's integration is smooth. They are highly customer-oriented, and the integration went well for us."
"PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"The UI is very good."
"My favorite feature is Storyline."
"PingSafe has a dashboard that can detect the criticality of a particular problem, whether it falls under critical, medium, or low vulnerability."
"The product provides multiple-device integration."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that we don't have to do packet captures on the network."
"It's stable."
"Scalability is its most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is micro-segmentation, which is the most important with respect to visibility."
"A complete and powerful micro-segmentation solution."
"The product offers great visibility into the network so we can enforce security measures."
"Generally speaking, Cisco support is considered one of the best in the networking products and stack."
"The Explorer allows you to know the traffic between source and destination."
"The product provides visibility into how the applications communicate and how the network protocols are being used."
"It has helped us to understand internal network visibility and firewall policy implementation. We use the product to simplify firewall policy implementation."
"The flexibility of the solution is its most valuable feature."
"The features that I have found most useful is the ability to centralize all the rules and then distribute them across various locations. However, I've encountered challenges related to tagging policies, which can be complex to devise. It's a matter that requires careful consideration and stakeholder involvement before implementing such policies."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The solution helps to maintain logs and monitor activities. It also helps us with access management. The tool helps us to secure organizational data that include files."
"The most valuable feature of Illumio Adaptive Security Platform is monitoring. When I have no requirement from the other application, I can use the web block traffic to build."
"One area for improvement could be the internal analysis process, specifically the guidance provided for remediation."
"In some cases, the rules are strictly enforced but do not align with real-world use cases."
"Currently, we would have to export our vulnerability report to an .xlsx file, and review it in an Excel spreadsheet, and then we sort of compile a list from there. It would be cool if there was a way to actually toggle multiple applications for review and then see those file paths on multiple users rather than only one user at a time or only one application at a time."
"There is a bit of a learning curve for new users."
"The Automation tab is an add-on that doesn’t work properly. They provide a list of scripts that don’t work and I have asked support to assist but they won’t help. When running on various endpoints the script doesn’t work and if it does, it’s only a couple. There are a lot of useful scripts that would be beneficial to run forensics, event logs, and process lists running on the endpoint."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"It does not bring much threat intel from the outside world. All it does is scan. If it can also correlate things, it will be better."
"The could improve their mean time to detect."
"The interface is really helpful for technical people, but it is not user-friendly."
"The integration could be better, especially with different types of solutions."
"The multi-tenancy, redundancy, backup and restore functionalities, as well as the monitoring aspects of the solution, need improvement. The solution offers virtually no enterprise-grade possibility for monitoring."
"It is highly scalable, but there is a limitation that it is only available on Cisco devices."
"It has an uninviting interface."
"It is not so easy to use and configure. It needs a bunch of further resources to work, which is mainly the biggest downside of it. The deployment is huge."
"I'd like to see better documentation for advanced features. The documentation is fairly basic. I would also like to see better integration with other applications."
"The product must be integrated with the cloud."
"Some of the features that can be improved is offer additional guidance on creating an effective and risk-free tagging policy would be highly beneficial."
"I would like to see better data security in the product."
"The product’s agents don't work very well in OT environments."
"The interaction we've had with the support team hasn't been ideal. Technical support should be improved."
"The customer service is lagging a bit. It could be better."
"It requires a low-level re-architecting of the product."
"The solution is very basic and doesn't do anything other than the orchestration of layer four endpoint firewall rules."
"Illumio Adaptive Security Platform could improve by supporting more operating systems. For example, Cisco and Apache appliances."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Workload is ranked 9th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 13 reviews while Illumio is ranked 4th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 8 reviews. Cisco Secure Workload is rated 8.4, while Illumio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Workload writes "A solution that provides good technical support but its high cost makes it challenging for users to adopt it". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Illumio writes "Pprevents attackers or threats from spreading or moving laterally". Cisco Secure Workload is most compared with Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, VMware NSX, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Cisco ACI and Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), whereas Illumio is most compared with Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, VMware NSX, Zscaler Internet Access, Zero Networks Microsegmentation and Microsoft Defender for Cloud. See our Cisco Secure Workload vs. Illumio report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors, best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, and best Microsegmentation Software vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center Security reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
